Hmm. Changing the gem names is causing to cause problems because
you might think you've upgraded to libxml version 7, but in fact
you're still pulling in libxml-ruby version 2. I see no way around
that.
Maybe the thing to do is change the name for Ruby 1.9. For libxml-
ruby require a ru
Trans wrote:
On Jul 8, 12:03 pm, Charlie Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Trans wrote:
Yes, that's it a bit of annoyance, and there had been some talk about
changing it. "_ruby" is fine, though maybe "_binding" would be more
descriptive?
Either way is fine - libxslt_ruby or libxslt_bind
Last, the project name on rubyforge is libxsl which is
incorrect. It
should be libxslt since its wrapping the libxslt library
(http://xmlsoft.org/XSLT/). Is it possible to change names?
That would require creating a new rubyforge project. Do you think
it's
worth the transition?
No, not
On Jul 8, 12:03 pm, Charlie Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Trans wrote:
>
> > Some months ago we discussed this with regards to libxml. The same
> > applies to libxslt. That is, the name needs to transition to
> > "libxslt", dropping the "-ruby".
>
> Hmm, I suppose we can call the gem that.
Trans wrote:
Some months ago we discussed this with regards to libxml. The same
applies to libxslt. That is, the name needs to transition to
"libxslt", dropping the "-ruby".
Hmm, I suppose we can call the gem that. However, the .so file cannot
be called that. I started doing it that way,
On Jul 7, 2:54 am, Charlie Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To go with the new libxml-ruby release, I've pushed up a libxslt-ruby
> release.
I'm glad to see libxslt library getting some loving, it was sorely in
need of it.
Some months ago we discussed this with regards to libxml. The same
app
To go with the new libxml-ruby release, I've pushed up a libxslt-ruby
release.
It includes two big changes.
* Windows support (both lots of memory fixes and binaries)
* New libxslt.rb ruby wrapper, so programs can simply say:
require 'libxslt'
* For all other platforms, I updated extconf.rb
On Nov 26, 2007 11:33 AM, Dan Janowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 11:02, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> The packages should be separate, but since xsl may or may not be
> available, it seemed like an easier build config to manage if the two
> are separated, with different extconf
On Nov 26, 2007, at 11:02, Sean Chittenden wrote:
>> Are we then talking about:
>>
>> ext/xml
>> ext/xsl
>>
>>> Really? Damn. I thought you had suggested we make one package out of
>>> it, and I was coming around to that idea.
>
>
> Hrm... I think I was advocating for a single repo, but not singl
> Are we then talking about:
>
> ext/xml
> ext/xsl
>
>> Really? Damn. I thought you had suggested we make one package out of
>> it, and I was coming around to that idea.
Hrm... I think I was advocating for a single repo, but not single
module/package.
Regardless of anything I've said in the pa
Are we then talking about:
ext/xml
ext/xsl
?
On Nov 25, 2007, at 08:27, Trans wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 24, 1:03 pm, Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Ok. Thanks. I'll have to move to ext/xsl/ then... hmm..actually
>>> if we
>>> want to keep it in xml/ then we'd have to make two layers
On Nov 24, 1:03 pm, Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok. Thanks. I'll have to move to ext/xsl/ then... hmm..actually if we
> > want to keep it in xml/ then we'd have to make two layers.
>
> > ext/xml/xml/
> > ext/xsl/xml/
>
> > I'm wondering if we really need the xml/ require-spac
> Ok. Thanks. I'll have to move to ext/xsl/ then... hmm..actually if we
> want to keep it in xml/ then we'd have to make two layers.
>
> ext/xml/xml/
> ext/xsl/xml/
>
> I'm wondering if we really need the xml/ require-space since we only
> have two possible files to load (libxml and libxsl).
Naw
On Nov 24, 2007 11:26 AM, Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I have just updated the SVN version of libxsl so that it is
> >> compatible with libxml 0.5.2.1, in theory. I don't use it, so if
> >> someone who does wants to try it, please let me know.
> >
> > If we bring over libxsl into
>> I have just updated the SVN version of libxsl so that it is
>> compatible with libxml 0.5.2.1, in theory. I don't use it, so if
>> someone who does wants to try it, please let me know.
>
> If we bring over libxsl into libxml do we need a separate ext/ subdir
> for it? Or can we combine the two i
On Nov 16, 3:19 pm, Dan Janowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have just updated the SVN version of libxsl so that it is
> compatible with libxml 0.5.2.1, in theory. I don't use it, so if
> someone who does wants to try it, please let me know.
If we bring over libxsl into libxml do we need a se
I have just updated the SVN version of libxsl so that it is
compatible with libxml 0.5.2.1, in theory. I don't use it, so if
someone who does wants to try it, please let me know.
Dan
___
libxml-devel mailing list
libxml-devel@rubyforge.org
http://ru
17 matches
Mail list logo
